Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
East New York

R179 Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

You need those 600’ (C) trains, or you simply will be unable to load the additional riders.  

Well, with every passing day that I see more random 480-ft trains placed on the (C), the 600' scenario is looking less likely. I don't know what else to say. And why the hell isn't the MTA saying anything about progress with the fleet exchange as it regards to the shutdown. Like, shouldn't this be public info already?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, U-BahnNYC said:

Well, with every passing day that I see more random 480-ft trains placed on the (C), the 600' scenario is looking less likely. I don't know what else to say. And why the hell isn't the MTA saying anything about progress with the fleet exchange as it regards to the shutdown. Like, shouldn't this be public info already?

There needs to be transparency, yes, but the multitude of 480s being placed on the (C) are generally a result of slow 179 deliveries and the need to familiarize 207 shop forces with the 179s before the 5 car sets hit the (A). Unless I'm missing something big, plans about the (C) going full have not changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There needs to be transparency, yes, but the multitude of 480s being placed on the (C) are generally a result of slow 179 deliveries and the need to familiarize 207 shop forces with the 179s before the 5 car sets hit the (A). Unless I'm missing something big, plans about the (C) going full have not changed. 

I agree. I rode the r179 twice and I noticed a lot of differences in the interior between the r179's and r160's. I don't have any knowledge about operating trains, but it's possible that the "train conductor/operator " room may be different as well, so it makes sense that A and C train conductors do become familiar and comfortable with the r179's.

The C will eventually become full length. If it doesn't happen during Canarsie, it will definitely happen with the r211's.

The reason why the G is getting 8 car trains is because the G is the only line outside ENY that can accommodate 8 car trains and ENY doesn't need all 8 car r179's, r160's and r143's. Hopefully the G stays full length once the Canarsie tunnel reopens and hopefully the G can be extended to Forest Hills during the weekends once QBL CTBC is done. The R shouldn't be the only local train along QBL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I agree. I rode the r179 twice and I noticed a lot of differences in the interior between the r179's and r160's. I don't have any knowledge about operating trains, but it's possible that the "train conductor/operator " room may be different as well, so it makes sense that A and C train conductors do become familiar and comfortable with the r179's.

The C will eventually become full length. If it doesn't happen during Canarsie, it will definitely happen with the r211's.

The reason why the G is getting 8 car trains is because the G is the only line outside ENY that can accommodate 8 car trains and ENY doesn't need all 8 car r179's, r160's and r143's. Hopefully the G stays full length once the Canarsie tunnel reopens and hopefully the G can be extended to Forest Hills during the weekends once QBL CTBC is done. The R shouldn't be the only local train along QBL.

 

The (G) is going to have to STAY with those 8-car trains... where else can they put them?! East New York will have a HUGE SURPLUS of 8-car trains.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, VIP said:

The (G) is going to have to STAY with those 8-car trains... where else can they put them?! East New York will have a HUGE SURPLUS of 8-car trains.

Exactly and hopefully the G gets the 8 car r160's that way in the event the MTA decides to extend the G to Forest Hills during the weekends (after CTBC is done), the G can borrow some r160's from the M, since the M only runs to Delancey Street during the weekends.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 179 operating cabs are smaller than the 160's There is less room for the t/o to operate with the seat all the way back & down. The master controller is very uncomfortable to operate on a long run. The C/R's have a hard time with the cab window latch right up on their chins when doing their platform observation. It's even tougher for shorter c/r's to look out the window. There is absolutely no space to climb between cars on these 179's Unless you are built like a pencil. There is no way to climb up between cars or remove car barrier springs when doing yard moves. I personally never operated one but I hear all the complaints from my fellow co workers. Yes they are shiny & new but they are big lemons. They should have gotten input from operating crews on what should be improved from the 160's to the 179's but they didn't 

Edited by Dan05979
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dan05979 said:

The 179 operating cabs are smaller than the 160's There is less room for the t/o to operate with the seat all the way back & down. The master controller is very uncomfortable to operate on a long run. The C/R's have a hard time with the cab window latch right up on their chins when doing their platform observation. It's even tougher for shorter c/r's to look out the window. There is absolutely no space to climb between cars on these 179's Unless you are built like a pencil. There is no way to climb up between cars or remove car barrier springs when doing yard moves. I personally never operated one but I hear all the complaints from my fellow co workers. Yes they are shiny & new but they are big lemons. They should have gotten input from operating crews on what should be improved from the 160's to the 179's but they didn't 

Wow, I just hope these complaints can be taken seriously by the MTA and be used as improvement tools for the r211's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dan05979 said:

The 179 operating cabs are smaller than the 160's There is less room for the t/o to operate with the seat all the way back & down. The master controller is very uncomfortable to operate on a long run. The C/R's have a hard time with the cab window latch right up on their chins when doing their platform observation. It's even tougher for shorter c/r's to look out the window. There is absolutely no space to climb between cars on these 179's Unless you are built like a pencil. There is no way to climb up between cars or remove car barrier springs when doing yard moves. I personally never operated one but I hear all the complaints from my fellow co workers. Yes they are shiny & new but they are big lemons. They should have gotten input from operating crews on what should be improved from the 160's to the 179's but they didn't 

What did they use the space they took away from the cabs for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 2:52 PM, Dan05979 said:

The 179 operating cabs are smaller than the 160's There is less room for the t/o to operate with the seat all the way back & down. The master controller is very uncomfortable to operate on a long run. The C/R's have a hard time with the cab window latch right up on their chins when doing their platform observation. It's even tougher for shorter c/r's to look out the window. There is absolutely no space to climb between cars on these 179's Unless you are built like a pencil. There is no way to climb up between cars or remove car barrier springs when doing yard moves. I personally never operated one but I hear all the complaints from my fellow co workers. Yes they are shiny & new but they are big lemons. They should have gotten input from operating crews on what should be improved from the 160's to the 179's but they didn't 

Most of those issues that you mentioned are the fault of the MTA, not Bombardier, although I'm not defending Bombardier and their lousy build quality at all.  The master controller is the same as on the R188 which has this weird curvature that the R160 MC does not have.

 

On 12/29/2018 at 12:50 PM, RR503 said:

There needs to be transparency, yes, but the multitude of 480s being placed on the (C) are generally a result of slow 179 deliveries and the need to familiarize 207 shop forces with the 179s before the 5 car sets hit the (A). Unless I'm missing something big, plans about the (C) going full have not changed. 

Even if all the R179s were on property now, I'm still not convinced there would be enough trains for the (C) to be full-length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bosco said:

Most of those issues that you mentioned are the fault of the MTA, not Bombardier, although I'm not defending Bombardier and their lousy build quality at all.  The master controller is the same as on the R188 which has this weird curvature that the R160 MC does not have.

 

Even if all the R179s were on property now, I'm still not convinced there would be enough trains for the (C) to be full-length.

How wouldn’t MTA have enough trains for full length (C) trains? A few of y’all throwing around “car shortage” like running water. We have enough cars but not enough for certain line service increases. There’s a difference between service and “spares” and those cars that enter the inspection barn. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 5:39 PM, Union Tpke said:

What did they use the space they took away from the cabs for?

I just hope that this lack of space doesn't represent a safety hazard. Yes we have not had any major accidents since the Williamsburg Bridge crash, but there has been derailments and we're under constant terrorist threat. The subway is probably on the top list of terrorist targets in NYC. It can happen in the stations or it can happen inside the train in the tunnel and I doubt that the MTA is 100% prepared for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eagle Railfanning said:

Does anyone know where R179 set 3070-3073 is? Over 120 cars have been delivered since then, and it's nowhere to be seen as far as I know.

Best guess would be that there's some quality issues with that set and Bombardier is focusing their resources on getting the rest of the cars built.  There was at least one R188 set that came out of order too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bosco said:

Best guess would be that there's some quality issues with that set and Bombardier is focusing their resources on getting the rest of the cars built.  There was at least one R188 set that came out of order too.

Ah, thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 5:39 PM, Union Tpke said:

What did they use the space they took away from the cabs for?

Hopefully more passenger space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2018 at 12:23 PM, U-BahnNYC said:

The (A) is more frequent in the rush anyway. Hopefully, by April, the (A) will consist of mostly 60-foot cars (R179s, R32s or R160s).

Besides, the (G) will be a "full length" of 480 ft, not any longer than a standard (C) train.

During the AM Rush, I often find myself letting Manhattan-bound 8th Avenue Line trains at Hoyt go until I can manage to force myself into one. Trains are too crowded and all 18 (C) trains have to be 600' permanently sooner or later. Note that the (C) being full-length is an increase in service, basically, not just extra capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jemorie said:

During the AM Rush, I often find myself letting Manhattan-bound 8th Avenue Line trains at Hoyt go until I can manage to force myself into one. Trains are too crowded and all 18 (C) trains have to be 600' permanently sooner or later. Note that the (C) being full-length is an increase in service, basically, not just extra capacity.

The C will be full length. It's just a matter of when.

I'm sharing this article in case anyone didn't hear the news: 

https://www.amny.com/transit/cuomo-l-train-shutdown-1.25459698

In other words, work will still last for at least 15 months, but it will be done during overnight and weekends and  L trains will run on a limited capacity between Brooklyn and Manhattan during overnight and weekends. 

I just hope the MTA does not scrap the plan for full length G trains. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

In other words, work will still last for at least 15 months, but it will be done during overnight and weekends and  L trains will run on a limited capacity between Brooklyn and Manhattan during overnight and weekends.

I really hope this trash Coumo is spewing has to be approved by the board. Everyone, from the communities to the MTA themselves have spent too much time planning for the shutdown only for Coumo to say "Its not going to happen folks, not on my watch!!" That is a waste of time and money that MTA has spent, and would be quite sad it could be canceled like this. Plus, I doubt the tunnel work could be done in 15-20 months via weekends and late nights. Highly doubt.

8 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I just hope the MTA does not scrap the plan for full length G trains. 

The (G) will get it 480' trains whether the L shutdown happens or not. If the MTA decides to send have a higher spare factor of cars, then the G won't get its 480' trains. Like others have said before, and it will be said again, there will be a surplus of 480' trains. Only place for them to go is either the (C) or the (G). If the (G) doesn't become 480' after all the R179s are delivered, then when the R211s come in the (G) will be 480'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it somehow more likely that the (A) would receive the 5-car R179s than the (C)? I'm wondering why it's been said that the 4-car sets are testing on the (C), but that the (C) will become full-length and the (A) may get the 5-car sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, V886132 said:

Is it somehow more likely that the (A) would receive the 5-car R179s than the (C)? I'm wondering why it's been said that the 4-car sets are testing on the (C), but that the (C) will become full-length and the (A) may get the 5-car sets.

The (C) has 4-car sets testing on it since the sets go through preliminary testing at Broad Channel test track, and its easy just to run the set on the (C), as Pitkin Yard is handles the preliminary testing. The 4-car sets are running on the (C) to help familiarize the crews/yard personnel before the 5-car trains come in and run on the (A)/(C).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, V886132 said:

Is it somehow more likely that the (A) would receive the 5-car R179s than the (C)? I'm wondering why it's been said that the 4-car sets are testing on the (C), but that the (C) will become full-length and the (A) may get the 5-car sets.

The plan is for the A is to get the r179's, and the C become full length r46's. 

Let's see what happens. The 10 car trains are delayed and  the  r179's are different from the r160, so A/C train conductors need to learn how to operate these cars as well as the crews/yard. That's why the C has a few 8 car r179's and we can't rule out the possibility of the 10 car r179's going to the C once the r211's are in service.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The plan is for the A is to get the r179's, and the C become full length r46's. 

Let's see what happens. The 10 car trains are delayed and  the  r179's are different from the r160, so A/C train conductors need to learn how to operate these cars as well as the crews/yard. That's why the C has a few 8 car r179's and we can't rule out the possibility of the 10 car r179's going to the C once the r211's are in service.

That makes sense. Based on the wording of earlier comments, I wasn’t sure if the 5-car R179s were NOT to be on the (C) in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Railfan 007 said:

I really hope this trash Coumo is spewing has to be approved by the board. Everyone, from the communities to the MTA themselves have spent too much time planning for the shutdown only for Coumo to say "Its not going to happen folks, not on my watch!!" That is a waste of time and money that MTA has spent, and would be quite sad it could be canceled like this. Plus, I doubt the tunnel work could be done in 15-20 months via weekends and late nights. Highly doubt.

Yes, it represents an inconvenience for the MTA due to the time and money spent on planning for the shutdown. However, this is still an excellent news for  L train commuters, especially those who live and/or work near or on 14th street who will not lose L train service during the reconstruction of the Canarsie tunnel.

Edited by subwaycommuter1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Saw 3181-3184 testing last night at Fulton St. It had an "8 AVE EXPRESS" signage. 

20190102_222930_zpstw1czw5e.jpg 

 

20190102_222947_zpsesrhbsqa.jpg

Edited by B46 via Utica
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.